I thought this essay was a good read, and I want to highlight the following statement in one footnote:
- See for example Payne’s example of the pericope adulterae. > Here, the bar is
on one side of the column while the umlaut is on the other side. > (A plate of this can
be seen at > http://www.bible-researcher.com/vaticanus1.html > and in Payne,
‘Fuldensis’, p. 262). > This seems to support the idea that while these two markings
may at times occur in the same place, they are not necessarily meant to be a single
entity but are two independently functioning signs.
This is quite strong evidence against Payne´s theory that there was a specific “distigmai-obelos”-symbol to mark omission.
For what it is worth, it is not surprising to see Payne´s work being torn apart. His approach to research is asking for it…